Category Archives: Canada permitting

July 8, 2014 · 12:52 am

Hold yer horses, Conawapa…

conawapa

The recommendations of the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba, in short:

The Panel recommends to the Government of Manitoba that:

THE FULL REPORT.

So if Canada’s Public Utilities Board says, “Manitoba Hydro had not made a strong enough business case for building the Conawapa dam,” why would there be any question that the Not-so-Great Northern Transmission line is not needed?

What does this mean?  The DOE is starting their scoping hearings for the federal environmental review next week:

1. Roseau, MN: Roseau Civic Center, 121 Center Street East, Roseau, MN, 56751; Wednesday. July 16, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

2. Baudette, MN: Lake of the Woods School, 236 15th Ave. SW., Baudette, MN, 56623; Wednesday, July 16, 2014, at 6:00 p.m.

3. Littlefork, MN: Littlefork Community Center, 220 Main Street, Littlefork, MN, 56653; Thursday, July 17, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

4. International Falls, MN: AmericInn, 1500 Highway 71, International Falls, MN, 56649; Thursday, July 17, 2014, 6:00 p.m.

5. Kelliher, MN: Kelliher Public School, 345 4th Street NW., Kelliher, MN, 56650; Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

6. Bigfork, MN: Bigfork School, 100 Huskie Boulevard, Bigfork, MN, 56628; Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at 6:00 p.m.

7. Grand Rapids, MN: Sawmill Inn, 2301 South Hwy 169, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744; Thursday, July 24, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.

8. Grand Rapids, MN: Sawmill Inn, 2301 South Hwy 169, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744; Thursday, July 24, 2014, at 6:00 p.m.

More on this in the news:

NEB has final say over Hydro mega-projects

PUB had no choice in approving dam

Manitoba grants licence for Keeyask dam, puts Conawapa on hold

 

1 Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Uncategorized

April 29, 2014 · 12:53 am

Will Braun’s OpEd in the Winnipeg Free Press

ConawapaBefore ConawapaAfter ConawapaBefore

Conawapa Dam — who needs it?  Who wants it?  Again, it’s that difference between need, and public purpose, and what it is that the utilities want.  WANT.  DESIRE.  It’s anything but need.

A deal was struck so this damn dam would be built, but things have changed, and the Wuskwatim dam is losing money.  Now Conawapa, to throw good money after bad?  Why?  So Manitoba Hydro can make even more electricity to export for profit?  Minnesota Power too?  Will this business plan be any better?

Dam deal loses shine

First Nations gambled on bold talk of prosperity

Premier Greg Selinger once said Manitoba Hydro’s partnerships with First Nations “yield phenomenal social licence.”

Indeed, the fact five hydro-affected First Nations have joined Hydro in development of new dams has lent moral clout to the utility’s ambitious plans.

That moral high ground is eroding. Hydro’s “new era” of northern dealings is in trouble as it sits on the brink of committing to the $6.5-billion Keeyask project.

Phase one of the new era was the Wuskwatim Dam, which went into operation in 2012. Hydro offered Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation the option to purchase a 33 per cent share in the dam.

Hydro, government and NCN said the partnership held great promise for the future. In 2011, a band councillor said Wuskwatim would earn up to $40 million a year, a third of it going to NCN.

It hasn’t worked out that way. According to Hydro, NCN’s share of Wuskwatim’s losses will total $24 million for the past fiscal year and a combined $134 million over the first decade of the dam’s operation.

That’s worth another take. The community of 4,800 people, 80 kilometres west of Thompson, has invested $108.4 million — most of it borrowed from Hydro — in a venture that is predicted to lose the community $134 million over 10 years.

Welcome to the new era.

Hydro has said NCN will not actually have to pay the utility for its share of annual losses, as the original agreement would have required. Hydro will cover those losses for now, incorporating them into its long-term financial agreement with NCN, essentially borrowing from NCN’s future profits to pay for present losses.

One way or another, NCN is stuck with the losses.

Hydro is also stuck with its share of losses, but that’s different. It simply passes them on to ratepayers. But NCN doesn’t have the option of raising anyone’s rates because its revenue stream is based on export prices, not domestic rates.

To be fair, NCN’s benefits from Wuskwatim also included a $5.7-million adverse-effects settlement as well as training and employment opportunities. Hydro and governments spent $60 million on a training program centred at NCN. About one-third of person-hours of employment during the construction of the dam went to NCN members. Less impressive were the turnover rate of 41 per cent and the average duration of employment: eight months.

That was the construction boom. At last report, only four NCN members work at long-term jobs at the dam.

Now four other First Nations — Tataskweyak, York Factory, Fox Lake and War Lake — are lined up for similar “new era” agreements on the proposed $6.5-billion Keeyask dam. They can purchase a combined stake of up to 25 per cent in the dam if they come up with about $375 million.

The “Keeyask Cree Nations” negotiated another option that would amount to a roughly two per cent stake in the dam, with a guaranteed minimum annual payment whether or not the dam makes money. Of course, the payments to the communities would be far less than the windfall once touted under the 25 per cent share.

The current assumption is the KCNs will choose this “preferred” option, providing the First Nations a combined $5 million annually in the early years of the dam.

These communities agreed to the dams based in part on the bold talk of hefty profits and a prosperous future. But the deals were negotiated before the recession and the spike in shale-gas production sank the export market, which is key to the profitability of the dams.

How would they vote today?

What happens if they toss their partnership agreements in the murky old-era waters of the Nelson River, either now or in a decade? Legally they can’t, but morally who could fault future generations for defying this form of partnership?

Hydro’s First Nations partners used to defend the new dams vehemently.

No one talks that way anymore. KCN leaders are contractually required to speak in favour of the dams, but the vigour is largely gone. And the behind-the-scenes grumbling is leaking out.

That’s not what Hydro and Selinger want to hear after paying northern First Nations $241 million for negotiation costs since 1999.

Selinger said last year Hydro’s “legacy of bitterness” in the north has been replaced by a spirit of partnership. Sadly, the new era of dams may exacerbate the bitterness rather than heal it.

Add that social risk to the massive financial risk of Keeyask, and Manitobans should ask whether Hydro has general societal approval to proceed with the dam.

By July, when Hydro wants to start building Keeyask, our utility is likely to have an Environment Act licence and a Water Power Act licence for the megaproject. But will it have a legitimate social licence?

 Will Braun works for the Interchurch Council on Hydropower.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Media, Need

April 15, 2014 · 5:23 pm

Open houses beginning in Canada for GNTL

As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, a series of open houses has begun this week, TODAY, and continue through the first week of May in Canada regarding the Canadian part of the “Great Northern Transmission Line.”

Hydro hosts open houses on U.S. transmission line

04/9/2014

Manitoba Hydro wants public feedback as it puts the final touches on its proposed transmission line to the United States.

The line is to run from Rosser (https://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/mb_mn_transmission/description.shtml) north-west of Winnipeg south to the Minnesota border where it will hook up with a second line to Duluth.

Under a proposal now being studied by the Public Utilities Board, Manitoba Hydro will own 49 per cent of the U.S. side of the 500 KV transmission line, with Minnesota Power owning the rest.

The PUB has heard that Hydro’s stake in the line was needed so that it would be upgraded, at Hydro’s request, from the originally-proposed 230 kilovolts to 500. The larger line (http://www.greatnortherntransmissionline.com/) would allow Hydro to ship more power into the Wisconsin market and import more power to Manitoba from U.S. utilities when needed.

Hydro says it also wants input from First Nations, the Manitoba Metis Federation, local municipalities, government departments, local landowners and the public during the final route selection and environmental assessment process.

Open houses will be held from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Ste. Anne — Tuesday, April 15, Seine River Banquet Centre, 80A Arena Road.
Richer — Wednesday, April 16, Richer Young at Heart Community Club, Dawson Road at Highway 302.
Vita — Tuesday, April 22, Vita Community Hall, 209 Main Street North.
Piney — Wednesday, April 23, Piney Community Centre, Highway No. 89 (Main Street).
La Broquerie — Thursday, April 24, La Broquerie Arena, 35 Normandeau Bay.
Marchand — Wednesday, April 30, Marchand Community Club, Dobson Avenue.
Dugald — Tuesday, April 29, Dugald Community Club, 554 Holland Street.
Lorette –Tuesday, May 6, Lorette Community Complex ,1420 Dawson Road.
Headingley — Wednesday, May 7, Headingley Community Centre, 5353 Portage Avenue.
Winnipeg –Thursday, May 8, Holiday Inn Winnipeg South, 1330 Pembina Highway.

Hydro has also posted an online survey (http://sm.upaknee.com/surveys/101378/manitoba-minnesota-transmission-project-round-2/) on its website for the project.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Hearings, Meetings

March 14, 2014 · 10:20 pm

A view from above — Canada that is…

Canada_flag_halifax_9_-04

In the Brandon Sun:

Power line to U.S. ‘ill-advised’ for Manitoban rate-payers: Pallister

By: Staff Writer

Thursday, Mar. 13, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Opposition Leader Brian Pallister charged today the NDP is recklessly “Americanizing” Manitoba Hydro at the expense of Manitobans under its plan to build two new dams and a new transmission line to the United States.

“The fact is what we’re guaranteed with here under the NDP’s agenda is a power-aid program,” he said. “We get to do all the sweating up here and they get the juice down there.”

Pallister said an example of that is that the Crown utility wants approval to build and co-own a proposed transmission line that will run from Winnipeg to Duluth, MN. Under a proposal now being studied by the Public Utilities Board, Manitoba Hydro will own 49 per cent of the 500 KV transmission line with Minnesota Power owning the rest.

The PUB has heard that Hydro’s stake in the line was needed so that it would be upgraded, at Hydro’s request, from the originally-proposed 230 kilovolts to 500. The larger line would allow Hydro to ship more power into the Wisconsin market and import more power to Manitoba from U.S. utilities when needed.

Hydro’s involvement in the line has been described at the hearing as being “an owner of last resort” in order to see it upgraded.

“Who says Manitoba Hydro had to get it done?” Pallister said. “This government, obviously, is driving Manitoba Hydro’s agenda and pushing Manitoba Hydro to make deal that may well be ill-advised for Manitoba ratepayers.”

The PUB has heard this week that under a confidential deal with Minnesota Power to build the transmission line, Manitoba Hydro — at this stage — will be responsible for 66 per cent of the line’s construction and maintenance. That’s because Minnesota Power does not need the full capacity of the line so it only wants to pay for the portion it will use.

“So with regard to the question of who will pay, Minnesota Power intends to rate-base the cost of their 250-megawatt share of the large (750 MW) interconnection,” Hydro’s division manager of power sales, David Cormie, told the PUB on Monday. “That means their customers, through their rate-recovery mechanisms with their customers, will recover the cost of their investment.

“That leaves Manitoba Hydro with the obligation to pay for the balance of 66 per cent, including the cost of providing the transmission services to Wisconsin Public Service. However, as we intend to be an owner only of last resort, we are making provisions in these discussions on the business relationship so that a third party can step in and participate.”

Cormie also said despite Hydro’s 66 per cent involvement in the 850-kilometre line, it’s still a benefit to the utility because it provides it with an electricity pipeline into the American Midwest.

“Under the contracts dependent on the line, Manitoba Hydro’s energy gets shipped first,” he told the PUB. “Whether it’s dependable or surplus fixed-priced energy or additional energy that Manitoba Hydro intends for the spot market, we own the transmission rights in Canada. They may own the transmission rights on the U.S. side associated with their ownership position, but it’s always Manitoba Hydro’s energy that will flow on that — on — under those firm rights.”

He also said it makes sense to build a larger-capacity transmission line now, instead of a smaller one, because having to add another line to Minnesota in later years will be more expensive and more scrutinized by regulators.

Pallister asked if American investors didn’t want to get involved in the line in its earlier stages, why they would get involved after it’s built.

“The fact is Manitoba Hydro has entered into a commitment that obligates Manitoba Hydro ratepayers to subsidize U.S. purchasers of hydro,” he said.

Pallister also questioned Hydro’s expectations, and the government’s, that by building the proposed Keeyask and Conawapa generating stations the province will reap billions selling power to Americans as U.S. utilities close old, carbon-belching coal plants and add hydro power as part of state-mandated plans to use more renewable energy.

He said experts to testify at the ongoing PUB hearing will say Hydro’s expectations are overblown.

The PUB is examining whether there are alternatives to building the $6.5-billion Keeyask and $10.7-billion Conawapa generating stations, and if the line to Duluth is needed.

It’s to file its report to government June 20.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Uncategorized

March 6, 2014 · 10:56 pm

Canadian NFAT Hearing has begun

canadianflag

Half of the Great Northern Transmission Project is in Canada, where the transmission line is part of the much larger “Manitoba Hydro’s proposed preferred development plan for the Keeyask and Conawapa Generating Stations, their associated domestic AC transmission facilities and a new Canada-USA transmission interconnection.“

Manitoba Public Utilities Board NFAT site for this project

Manitoba Hydro is seeking government approval for its proposed Preferred Development Plan, which requires the following commitments in June 2014:

In addition, the plan would include Conawapa G.S., 1,485 MW, with an earliest ISD of 2026, although decisions on whether to construct Conawapa and its timing are not required now and would be made over the next few years.

Intervenors: CLICK HERE for identification and information about their cases

They are going through a similar but MUCH more rigorous process, and the NFAT hearing has just begun, scheduled to extend from Monday’s beginning through May 13, 2014, with “Closing Submissions” following until May 26, and maybe longer than that.

NFAT Hearing Schedule

Also, if you go to the “HEARING“ tab, then click on Exhibit Lists, each intervenor’s exhibits are linked, from the initial Intervenor Application to everything they plan to enter during the hearing, and… like… WOW!  Lots of good info there, including:

LaCapra – Appendix 8  Transmission (MAJORLY redacted)

LaCapra – Appendix 6  Export Markets (also MAJORLY redacted)

Spend some time on the NFAT site and check out how they conduct hearings up there, what type of evidence and reports they’re entering, the length of the hearings, and check the intervenors’ work plans and the amounts the Manitoba PUB is dishing out for intervenor expenses!  Granted the subject of this Canadian hearing is much broader than “just” a transmission line, but what a difference it would make of hearings here were more like hearings there!

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Canada permitting, Uncategorized